I would like to know the answer too. Anyone here know what is the answer to that question. I'll do some investigation and get back to you if I bump into an decent answer. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably could help you..

I thought the same but on my excr it says "on rec til 11/03" I have read certain states start the clock from time of first dlnqcy, which seems to be the case in IL..

Yes, they entered jdgmnt and it's on all 3cr's. I've been doing my homework and understand a co & a.

Pr.

/judgment from the same ca, can coexist on a cr. Apparently the co is reported by the ca and the.

Pr.

/judgment is somehow sold to the cra's. Thus making it look like the ca's aren't reporting info twice on the same account(???).

Yes, very "tricky" indeed ... I am being extremely cautious in dealing with the.

Pr.

/judgment ... I want to make the best move and not waste my only shot! As of yet, I have not chllgd anything ... I would like to settle on the co or ignore it all together until nov'03. After the one co falls off all 3cr's, I'm considering an addy change before validating the.

Pr.

/judgment..

Not 100% sure either & I hope the same as well ;)..

The.

Pr.

/judgment is somehow sold to the cra's..

Wildbill.

==================.

Never heard of a CRA buying judgments-Anyone else ever hear of it?.

LB 59..

FYI: In doing my hw, this is where I got my info regarding "cra's buying.

Pr.

Info"..

Ok, again there is misinformation being given regarding the time period for negative tradelines to remain on a credit report..

The fact that payments are being made on an account DOES NOT change the date which the account will drop off of the report. The FCRA was amended in 1997 to take any ambiguity out of it, but the previous FCRA has also been interpreted by the FTC as giving a definite date..

For accounts reported after 12/31/97, the seven year clock is started from the commencement of delinquency date plus 180 days (the last payment made on the account before it eventually got charged off, etc). It doesn't matter what happens later on, that date can't be changed or updated through making payments on the account..

For accounts reported prior to 12/31/97, the seven year clock begins from the date of chargeoff, disposition, etc. Again, nothing that occurs with the account later on has any bearing on the seven year reporting period..

The only way an account can be "re-aged" or brought current again, is prior to chargeoff. Once chargeoff has occurred, that account can never be brought current again, and therefore the seven year clock is set in stone..

Almost all of the time, the CRA's will go by the commencement of delinquency date regardless of when the item was chargedoff, just to make it simple for themselves..

Making payments can change the DOLA on the credit reports, but it CAN'T EXTEND THE REPORTING PERIOD. Equifax has faulty reporting in that they only report the DOLA and not a date of status or something similar like TU and Experian do, so you have to watch them like a hawk to make sure they don't inadvertantly re-age a tradeline. Just because this happens from time to time, does not make it legal and they are in violation of the FCRA if they try it. This also applies to any CA or creditor who tries to re-age an account because you are making payments. That is not legal and you have damages if they try this. They know it, but they hope you don't know it..

So don't worry about the seven year reporting period, that should stay the same. Now, the above posters were correct in that the SOL for this account is not applicable for two reasons:.

1. Making payments on an account DOES re-set the SOL for legal collection (has nothing to do with credit reporting), and therefore because you are making payments, you have no SOL defense..

2. If they already have a judgement against you, then how can you claim the SOL is about to expire? Your goose is already cooked and again SOL is irrelevant..

If you are making payments to them and you are thinking about stopping those payments, then you will be opening yourself up to legal collection methods such as wage garnishment if that is allowed in your state. I would take another approach if I were you..

I would recommend getting yourself VERY familiar with the FCRA and the FDCPA, as well as the top three or four posts so you know what you are dealing with. You can't fight for your rights if you don't know what the laws say..

Good luck...

I was strictly referring to my excr, which shows a co as continuing on record until 11/03. I've been watching this like a hawk and keeping good records, so far, it has never changed since the account first went delinquent back in 95. Perhaps I was confusing the SOL w/the 7yr time frame in which the cra or ca report the co. (as in my ex example).

Thanks for the clarification and pointers regarding my thoughts in dealing with this ... I'm doing the hw, but it's not easy deciphering the good info from the bad. This has really helped!!!!!..

No problem. It is a common mistake for people to confuse the SOL with the 7 year reporting period, even though they are totally different entities...

You are mistaken, making payments on a charged off account DOES NOT reset or extend the SOL for being sued..

The ONLY way the SOL for being sued is by entering into a new contract agreement such as a consolidation or new credit card with the od debt tacked on..

AND in some States, like Va. EVEN if you do enter into such a contract, and even if it contains ALL the right waivers of your rights, it is STILL unenforceable..

However, as you correctly pointed out, since the judgment was already entered, the point about "legal" SOL is moot...

I repectfully disagree. I will just use the statutes from my state, but basically the SOL for collection of a debt can be renewed through "payment on account or the written promise to pay on the account". I have been involved in lawsuits myself where this issue has come up and my attorneys as well as many respected members of credit net have basically said the same thing. I'm sure I can scrounge some references up if you would like to see them..

Whychat, I respect your opinion and I know you have been involved in quite a bit of litigation yourself, so I don't discount what you said, but I would be interested in pursuing the issue further so that a definitive answer to this question can be attained :)..

Quote:.

Originally posted by tnobles.

The judgment is public record thus the information is SOLD to the bureau. The creditor is not reporting the judgment..

The.

Pr.

/judgment is somehow sold to the cra's..

Wildbill.

==================.

FYI: In doing my hw, this is where I got my info regarding "cra's buying.

Pr.

Info".

>">Wild Bill.

=======================.

***The judgment is public record thus the information is SOLD to the bureau.****.

This Means only the information about the judgment is sold to the CRA and not the judgment itself...

You are correct, as far as it goes,however, ALL States have something called a "statute of frauds" which doesn't really have much to do with frauds..

These statutes spell out what is a written contract, and how it may be ammended, changed or in the case of SOL extended or waived..

In the case of oral contracts, they also have rules that would evidence such "re-aging"..

However,in the case of CONSUMER ACCOUNTS there is always an exception..

If you tell me your State,I will find the statute that exempts consumer credit card (or other consumer open-ended accounts) from any waiver of SOL by virtue of a payment on the account..

Plus, on my website, in many of the individual State's statutes , I have posted the statute that prevents reaging EXCEPT by wrtten contract...

Whychat,.

Sure, that sounds good. I would like to read it myself in case I ever have to deal with that situation again in the future (lets' hope not :) ).

I live in Missouri...

I have had to put MORE on Mo law and rules on my website than any other State..

If you click on Mo on my website and read the first page you will find the clause covering cc debt, in addition if you click on the link at the bottom, "more laws for SOL defense" you will find even MORE protection against re-aging of SOL, PLUS there is a link to Mo UCC statutes, which contains the full text of the citations and a lot more..

For some unknown reason, there seems to be a dearth of real knowledge of not only Mo. laws on the subject of debt and credit, but also the FDCPA and TILA among Mo lawyers. I cannot tell you how many Mo lawyers I have been in correspondence with who seem oblivious to their own consumer protection statutes. Perhaps because these laws are buried, as in many States in the UCC codes...

Well jdog??.

I believe the expression goes something like "I'm from Missouri, so you have to show me"..

I don't claim Missouri, I just live here! I think the show me state motto is rediculous, unless they mean "show me how to build proper roads, show me what a state budget is, show me what a real state is like....".

Thanks for the information, why chat.....

I have heard the expression stubborn as a Missouri Mule...

Actually, I believe you and I had a conversation going quite a while back about a case I was involved in regarding the SOL for collection. You are right, Missouri seems to cause all kinds of problems when it comes to the statutes for SOL. One reason for this is that MO has some very ambiguous laws that can be interpreted differently depending on what your objective is. They have clauses for "written contracts" and they also have clauses for "contracts regarding money" which is what confuses so many people because lawyers will try to argue that credit card contracts are money contracts which carry a 10 year SOL in MO. MO consumer law pretty much sucks...